I agree with the column very much. GW2 has produced an insanely high amount of hype such that if you post any criticism of the game you get pretty much trolled and flammed instantly. The game has quite a few radical aspects that make the game arcade like and more casual which just isnt what many players are looking for in an MMORPG.
I will start out by agreeing with your basic thesis that GW2 is not MMO Jesus come to save the genre. And in relation to that, you are right about a lot of the fans going way beyond fandom. I was most blown away by those who were living in denial over the weekend regarding the downtime and other launch problems. No, they were not crushing problems that would bring the game to its knees as much as some of the trolls might have hoped. They were normal startup problems that most games have. Still 3 hours of unscheduled downtimes is not a flawless headstart. Both the fanbois and the trolls both need to gain a little perspective.
Even so, I think you are off on a few small points. So if I am disagreeing with the devil's advocate would that make me St. Michael's advocate?
To say that GW2 was not the first to introduce a dynamic event system is to make a pretty big assumption about what constitutes a dynamic event system. In so far as DEs are similar to Warhammer's PQs this is true. but this limits the definition of DEs to events that had several stages and can be joined or left and anytime along the way. And also those stages were progressed by the players pushing them forward or failing to do so.
As we all know Rift also pushed forward the nature of PQs or events. I think Rift was even the first to describe them as dynamic because they could happen at anytime and in more or less random locations. They would also spawn invaders that could go out and take other locations further adding to the way that these events could impact the world. but again this is to define dynamic as the way that the event impacts the world. That is it makes the world seem more dynamic rather than the events themselves. Still very welcome changes all around.
I believe that ArenaNet is using the term Dynamic Event in a much different way. And regardless their intention with terminology, They have added their own unique twist to these events so I do think it is inaccurate to say that others have done the same thing before. Others have done similar and GW2 certainly didn't come up with the whole concept from scratch but rather built on what had gone before.
So what makes DEs different from say Rifts? DEs are dynamic in the sense that what events may occur in an area are dependent on the state of the world in that area. Rifts would simply open up at more or less random locations and times and cause a good bit of havok in the area changing the environment as they happened but what rifts happened and what they did didn't change outside of some scaling to the number of people in the zone. DEs on the other hand take place according to how the world is different at any given point in time. So if the Centaurs have taken over a human town then the event for centaurs to come and take the town will not occur. Why? because the Centaurs already have the town. They don't need to attack themselves. Rather because of the state of the world at that time, you will get an event more like the refugees of the town plan an attack to retake the town. So it is not so much that the events happen at random times. and in most cases the events don't take place at random locations, the locations are for the most part completely static. but rather what events happen constitutes the dynamic part of Dynamic Events. This design element is what is completely new and ArenaNet deserves a bit of credit for that.
You also mention that they were not the first to do three faction PvP. This is true but I don't remember them ever claiming to be the first in that regard. What they did different that I hadn't seen before was World vs World. That is setting servers against servers rather than having 2 or 3 factions within a server go after each other.
As for their payment model. I really dislike how some claim that it is essentially free to play. Buy it and you never pay again. Eh, not so much really. But I think you are going a bit too far the other way. You seem to be making the assumption that they have to replace all the revenue that they would have make from subs though the item shop. That the item shop is their major source of revenue. I am not so sure this is true. I don't doubt that the items shop is important and that they want to get everything they can from it. But I believe that box sales are still the major portion of their revenue. first, they will continue to sell boxes past this month. Not everybody grabs the new game the week that it releases. Also, most games (non-mmo that is) run on a cycle of release the game, make your box sales then fund your next project's development from those sales until you can release again. In GW2 it wont so much be a matter of the next project being something completely new but rather the next project is the next major update. And I very much doubt that they will wait two to two and a half years to release an expansion. The campaigns of the original GW came out about a year or less than the one before and that that was the original plan to sell another campaign each year to keep the project going. I suspect with GW2 that they would like to be able to keep development going based on reinvesting from box sales and that what is made from the item shop is intended to give them cushion and to sweeten the profits. Of course that is just a possibility but the point is that unlike most f2p games, they do have the pretty significant income of box sales to add to the equation.
Originally posted by Ozmodan GW2 is a fun and well put together game, but I completely agree with the OP, it is definitely not the MMO savior and will not budge Wow off it's pedestal. The problem is, it is just more of the same. Nothing really new.
I agree, however I think GW2 is doing what WoW did 8 years ago, by taking new and old concepts in MMO's and polishing them and making them fit togeather in one seemless game. GW2 is not the savor of MMO's but they've taken the largest step in the right direction since WoW.
Also I think we need to consider the age demographic following and playing MMO's is getting older, which will influence game developers. But that's a discussion for another day.
Originally posted by Iselin I'm having problems with the concept that disagreements in game forums happen between zealots and haters. There is nothing wrong with debates about differing opinions even when those debates are passionate. Demonstrating feelings about this gas you care about is much more honest than the oh so cool detached style that many have when posting their smug one liners. Yes, there are douchebags and asshats who post in practically every thread but from where I'm standing I see an equal number on both sides of any argument--certainly not predominantly in the zealot camp as this blog seems to be saying.
What this article is attempting to highlight is that the fanboys are zealously attacking everything with anything negative to say about the title, not just 'haters'. People are pretty good about recognizing when someone is just spewing hate in a forum post, and then completely disregarding that person.
The fanboys, however, just attack everybody. She's saying that if you like the game and you see negative criticism you need to stop acting on your passion, stop attacking, stop replying with sarcasm, stop accusing people of being trolls, and discuss the issue calmly and rationally. A lot of fans of the game here on this forum are capable of doing that, but way too many here have that knee jerk response to try to swoop in as the white knight and skewer the evil naysayer with their lance of justice.
If it's a troll post, report it and move on. If it's a reasonable complaint, stop being a douche about it.
And what I'm saying is that just as many positive threads started by "fanboys" are being attacked by "haters." But hey, it's just the times we live in. There is very little meaningful debate anywhere without opponents being demonized and everyone going for the clever "sound bite."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So far GW2 is feeling awesome. Personally I would prefer that it NOT rival WoW in population size. There is enough going on in the game to keep things interesting for awhile, especially once WvW kicks off in ernest after a few weeks of leveling and such.
I have heard alot of people speak of end game, this meaning dynamic world ends. That is not what nor why they brought GW2 along. GW1 had a large issue limited growth. GW dev update throw great events. But the end game should not be in a MMO thus why you will be also supporting them 1 or 2 times a year with a major expansion, micro transaction if you choose too. I agree with Devil veiw point players will be what makes GW2 last, and they will be there if the game grow levels with them and never feels like you hit the cap wall for long. To me the cap wall, the game ends is a mistake. Maybe a peice of the story will end as you turn the pages the next starts.
Anyways, the List can go on and on. The point I'm trying to make, is that GW2 is riding on the terribleness of the games before it.
Considering it's been an 8 year drought--close enough.
"Savior" is just pre-loading the argument for lots of emotive responses. Players really shouldn't do that. Staff shouldn't either.
Now, if we could just get everyone to stop shooting long enough--the "forum PvP" could move on, and we could talk about games and design again.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Icewhite Originally posted by CoatedAnyways, the List can go on and on. The point I'm trying to make, is that GW2 is riding on the terribleness of the games before it.
Considering it's been an 8 year drought--close enough.
"Savior" is just pre-loading the argument for lots of emotive responses. Players really shouldn't do that. Staff shouldn't either.
Now, if we could just get everyone to stop shooting long enough--the "forum PvP" could move on, and we could talk about games and design again.
I wouldn't say 8 years. I really enjoyed my time in TBC. WotLK is what killed WoW for me. Even that had some redeeming factors and wasn't a total wasted of my time, I played it on and off.
But yeah, it was the start of the decline. but from 2004 until 2008 WoW was still good.
Does the MMO genre need saving? I think alot of people don't realize that MMOs are very different from other gaming genres. MMOs are supposed to be played for years on end. It's not like Madden or CoD where there's a new one that you're supposed to jump to every year. If you hop from one MMO to the next everytime a new one comes out, then you aren't going to be happy with any of them.
Another mistake I think alot of players make is that MMOs aren't actually about gear or endgame at all. They're about the journey of your character, the people you meet, and the story of how you triumph against all odds. Going from level 1 to cap in a couple of days will cause you to end up hating any MMO, because there is no real "endgame" in MMOs. They're MMOs, they're not supposed to ever end. There is no final final boss that you kill and the credits will roll.
I think alot of developers don't get these points either. They want to add in a good "endgame" when and MMO should never have an end. They want to add new content and gear without much of a story at all. I think this is where WoW gets it right and why it's so popular. With every content patch they add, there is always a story behind it, and a reason why you're going to go raid that dungeon and kill that boss. It's not for the gear (well it shouldn't be), it's for the sake of killing that boss because he's evil or endangering your way of life. If you make a game with no story behind why you're players are going to do something, then they have no reason to do it.
Yes MMOs have quests to go kill 10 rats, but the overall arching story should always be there in the back of your mind when you play. I can go make a new character in WoW or Rift still and go through it knowing what will happen next and still enjoy it, because I know in the back of my mind that I'm going to be saving this town, or helping people find a murderer, or cause unrepable damage to my enemies.
Another mistake I think alot of players make is that MMOs aren't actually about gear or endgame at all. They're about the journey of your character, the people you meet, and the story of how you triumph against all odds.
I'm going to disagree with this part of your post.
One thing that Death Knights proved was that all content prior to current is irrelevant. There was no need to go back throgh Vanilla. Except to level and even with that, to do it as fast as possible to get to endgame content where everyone else was.
Now, if you are going to say that your statement is how it should be, then yes, the genre does need saving.
So.... Fanboys burn you at the stake for negativity towards GW2 wait 2 the 3 months when all they have is to PVP in BG's and reroll alts for a different story to find "something to do" because of no end game content. Hit 80 and then what PVP? Been there done that. Go back to old zones? Nope, really who does that and your not even max lvl you put your time into. There is nothing new and mind blowing in GW2 is it fun? Sure for the moment but lacks content because of no content at 80 and the PVP is same crap as before spec OP and play together gg. Good game sure will it last prolly since its b2p but wont have crazy numbers and hardcore players will hate this game.
I have seen A-Net do a lot of misleading,but have they promised anything?This topic really has nothing to do with any devils advocate,it is a simple ,what did they promise and we can dicuss weather it is even possible.
I do KNOW Square Enix well and hey are a developer who makes promises and oddly enough DELIVERS and pretty mcuh on time also.That is not common place in gaming now days.
My opinion is that A-Net does not strike me as being a developer that would make promises becuase to be frank,i think they would struggle to meet them.
Once you enter the realm of no subscription model,you have ZERO ongoing income from that player.This means every bit of content MUST have a time line and the over all profit margin must remain at a certain target.If anything starts to waiver NOT in A-Net's favor,then expect RUSHED or missing content,the latter you will never know unless they flat out tell you they couldn't finish the content in time,not likely to happen.
As long as there is a subscription model,you as a develoepr can make promises becuase it is a matter of perhaps taking a bit longer to recoup the extra cost.No sub fee yo ucan't recoup the extra time to fulfill a promise,so it is a straight up profit loss.Imo that type of setup does not bode well for the players,they have no chance of getting the best possible product ONLY one that will meet the devs time line.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It's improtant to remember at this stage that GW2 has about 1 million sales, thats 5 times more than TSW which is considered a failure of an mmo. The diferential between success and failure for an mmo is quite a narrow one. Kinect + Adventures sold 18 million and revolutionized console gaming in 2010. SImply stated GW2 isn't big enough to deserve the tag saviour, it just hasn't sold enough copies.
i played in the betas-stress tests and it is no savior its really a wow wanna be it use to be original but they changed gw2, 2 much -and its just too much like wow now -ive played em all- among thousands of other pc games:P Guild wars 1 was WAY better and there will always be a new savior of mmos its just whatever is ("In") at that time
The problem with saying things like this, "Is Guild Wars 2 the MMO Savior?" is that in a few months when another AAA title releases it will be the next "savior of MMOs".
While GW2 maybe new and cool for now, but when the newness rubs off in a few months, it will just be another game that everyone starts screaming is bad, or lacks development and how the next game is going to destroy it. The F2P model they have chosen is a good one but it is like most F2P models of its type, generates a spike of income but lacks longevity. People will tend to blow 30-100 dollars in the first month or two of their game time then will begin to drop off after that.
I think this is by far the best sequal to a franchise MMO that has come out in a good while, but we are entering the age of sequals.
One of the the best articles I have read in a while it seems. Every article I read praises "insert game here" or bounces around the subject if they dont really like aspects in fear of flaming. To the point with very good advice and reasoning.
I don't play GW2 but have played on a friends account. It isn't for me (at this time) . As you said I would never want to see a game fail but at the same time the community surrounding a possibly astounding game pushes me away. This was the same thing behind Tera. I felt, and still feel that Tera is a great game with a terrible community.
The elitest attitude needs to die in videogames (hell let's make it the entire world while we are at it). I feel like it is brought along by new age online FPS (Call of Duty, Halo, Battle Field, Ect.) through consoles. It is so easy to bash someone through a tv screen/microphone/keyboard without thinking on the impact you are making. You are free/safe to say whatever you want without pending consequences from that person (most of the time). Seeing as how MMOs have adopted many things from FPS like battlesgrounds and instant que, it is easy for the same mindset to be applied. This person is from this server and I will never see them again. Take all of that and apply it to a forum and add in the idea that trolling is "cool" now and you have a very nasty flame machine.
My point is as well with this argument that the people that post here about GW2 (or the majority) have turned me off of this game.
Take negative comments against this game with a grain of salt and remember in the long run it won't impact it at all. However, remember a few negative comments versus millions of flames on those negative comments will impact the appeal of the game and its' community.
This is what I see. GW2 fans are excited about Anets take on resolving problems inherint in mmo's today. Generally, we've all said it, and we've all read others saying it and we're growing tired of trying to correct the misconceptions. There are alot of people that don't have a clue but that doesn't stop them from having a blog or youtube channel or fansite or whatever form of web presence. These people are quoted and misinformation bleeds out tainting the discretion of people who use this basis as a means of research.
So rather than focusing on the zealot fanboy's that try so desperately hard to help people understand, why don't you take a little responsibility on how YOU create problems. YOU emphasize how these fervent fanboys are always attacking people with legitimate concerns, however no mention on the blatant misinformation presented by so many. It's not against any forum guidelines to be wrong, but it is wrong to attack those who spread misinformation.
Now I'm not saying that people should be allowed to attack other posters, but if the people who are responsible for these websites would issue some input into correcting misinformation it would go a long long way. I doubt that would ever happen though, it's easy to claim that you aren't responsible for the information others post even though it's through your medium that it is posted.
So sure, we need to be the savior of GW2 but remember that if we're doing the saving, who or what are we saving it from. Who gets listed as the anti-savior?
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Lol who said a pvp focus game will alive? wow still pwning others mmos because PVE/ENDGAME/RAIDS. ppl want stragegy bosess, dungeons, hard instances, i bought gw2 and give it to my friend for FREE its pathetic , the combat is soooooooooo slow, you cant get your destiny THE GAME DOES.... is almost "ALMOST" an instanced game lol.. im sure this will die in less 1 year..
Ahh!! and another thing, why hell this gw2 start in lvl 80? that is too bad, so in next 2 expansion what will be the level cap? 120? 150? hahaha that is a total fail... and im not a wow lover, im just saying that gw2 IS NOT A GOOD GAME!!
Originally posted by pois0ned Lol who said a pvp focus game will alive? wow still pwning others mmos because PVE/ENDGAME/RAIDS. ppl want stragegy bosess, dungeons, hard instances, i bought gw2 and give it to my friend for FREE its pathetic , the combat is soooooooooo slow, you cant get your destiny THE GAME DOES.... is almost "ALMOST" an instanced game lol.. im sure this will die in less 1 year..(Agree
Everyone who is ranting about the CS has either forgotten or simply did not know in the first place that gems can also be purchased for in game currency at a fixed rate. I should also point out the opposite is also true, therefore 1: the game is truly B2P with no further cost to you except for expansions and unless you are impatient. 2: they eliminated gold sellers with the same system. While I agree it is not the Savior of the industry it certainly is foe me and MMORPGS for which they have my thanks (excuse any spelling issues, this post was brought to you by a laggy smart phone)
I feel the game is just all around bad...combat is extremely boring, game itself is sad. Never been a hater, but wow...this game may be the most boring game i've played in years. Nice launch as in its smooth...but the gameplay is pathetic.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
Originally posted by afhn2110 I feel the game is just all around bad...combat is extremely boring, game itself is sad. Never been a hater, but wow...this game may be the most boring game i've played in years. Nice launch as in its smooth...but the gameplay is pathetic.
You've never been a hater?
Your posting history begs to differ, nice try though.
If we look at the release of Themepark mmorpgs over last 5yrs or so (the time GW2 has been in dev let's say more or less): It's mostly be repeating the pattern of spike of players, and each successive one sees a faster and faster fall off esp. with SWOTR. How will GW2 compare?
I'm guessing it will in part buck that negative trend. The price is very different and more equitable to players, firstly and lastingly. A lot of the needless grindlness is removed and the talent and polish of the various components of the mmorpg are very high.
Then there's pvp in 2 modes both of which look credible in their own formats. The value for money even if the PvE is themepark finite, seems considerably higher than other mmorpgs. So I think there's boost in success compared to what we're becoming all too accustomed to with themepark releases.
Comments
I agree with the column very much. GW2 has produced an insanely high amount of hype such that if you post any criticism of the game you get pretty much trolled and flammed instantly. The game has quite a few radical aspects that make the game arcade like and more casual which just isnt what many players are looking for in an MMORPG.
Even so, I think you are off on a few small points. So if I am disagreeing with the devil's advocate would that make me St. Michael's advocate?
To say that GW2 was not the first to introduce a dynamic event system is to make a pretty big assumption about what constitutes a dynamic event system. In so far as DEs are similar to Warhammer's PQs this is true. but this limits the definition of DEs to events that had several stages and can be joined or left and anytime along the way. And also those stages were progressed by the players pushing them forward or failing to do so.
As we all know Rift also pushed forward the nature of PQs or events. I think Rift was even the first to describe them as dynamic because they could happen at anytime and in more or less random locations. They would also spawn invaders that could go out and take other locations further adding to the way that these events could impact the world. but again this is to define dynamic as the way that the event impacts the world. That is it makes the world seem more dynamic rather than the events themselves. Still very welcome changes all around.
I believe that ArenaNet is using the term Dynamic Event in a much different way. And regardless their intention with terminology, They have added their own unique twist to these events so I do think it is inaccurate to say that others have done the same thing before. Others have done similar and GW2 certainly didn't come up with the whole concept from scratch but rather built on what had gone before.
So what makes DEs different from say Rifts? DEs are dynamic in the sense that what events may occur in an area are dependent on the state of the world in that area. Rifts would simply open up at more or less random locations and times and cause a good bit of havok in the area changing the environment as they happened but what rifts happened and what they did didn't change outside of some scaling to the number of people in the zone. DEs on the other hand take place according to how the world is different at any given point in time. So if the Centaurs have taken over a human town then the event for centaurs to come and take the town will not occur. Why? because the Centaurs already have the town. They don't need to attack themselves. Rather because of the state of the world at that time, you will get an event more like the refugees of the town plan an attack to retake the town. So it is not so much that the events happen at random times. and in most cases the events don't take place at random locations, the locations are for the most part completely static. but rather what events happen constitutes the dynamic part of Dynamic Events. This design element is what is completely new and ArenaNet deserves a bit of credit for that.
You also mention that they were not the first to do three faction PvP. This is true but I don't remember them ever claiming to be the first in that regard. What they did different that I hadn't seen before was World vs World. That is setting servers against servers rather than having 2 or 3 factions within a server go after each other.
As for their payment model. I really dislike how some claim that it is essentially free to play. Buy it and you never pay again. Eh, not so much really. But I think you are going a bit too far the other way. You seem to be making the assumption that they have to replace all the revenue that they would have make from subs though the item shop. That the item shop is their major source of revenue. I am not so sure this is true. I don't doubt that the items shop is important and that they want to get everything they can from it. But I believe that box sales are still the major portion of their revenue. first, they will continue to sell boxes past this month. Not everybody grabs the new game the week that it releases. Also, most games (non-mmo that is) run on a cycle of release the game, make your box sales then fund your next project's development from those sales until you can release again. In GW2 it wont so much be a matter of the next project being something completely new but rather the next project is the next major update. And I very much doubt that they will wait two to two and a half years to release an expansion. The campaigns of the original GW came out about a year or less than the one before and that that was the original plan to sell another campaign each year to keep the project going. I suspect with GW2 that they would like to be able to keep development going based on reinvesting from box sales and that what is made from the item shop is intended to give them cushion and to sweeten the profits. Of course that is just a possibility but the point is that unlike most f2p games, they do have the pretty significant income of box sales to add to the equation.
All die, so die well.
I agree, however I think GW2 is doing what WoW did 8 years ago, by taking new and old concepts in MMO's and polishing them and making them fit togeather in one seemless game. GW2 is not the savor of MMO's but they've taken the largest step in the right direction since WoW.
Also I think we need to consider the age demographic following and playing MMO's is getting older, which will influence game developers. But that's a discussion for another day.
If only that were true.
Why don't you ask the people who bought Tabula Rasa whether or not they still have live servers. Or Shadowbane. Or SWG....
Just because you bought the game does not oblige the company to keep servers running if they're failing financially.
And what I'm saying is that just as many positive threads started by "fanboys" are being attacked by "haters." But hey, it's just the times we live in. There is very little meaningful debate anywhere without opponents being demonized and everyone going for the clever "sound bite."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
So far GW2 is feeling awesome. Personally I would prefer that it NOT rival WoW in population size. There is enough going on in the game to keep things interesting for awhile, especially once WvW kicks off in ernest after a few weeks of leveling and such.
Look for the Rose with the Thorn.
Considering it's been an 8 year drought--close enough.
"Savior" is just pre-loading the argument for lots of emotive responses. Players really shouldn't do that. Staff shouldn't either.
Now, if we could just get everyone to stop shooting long enough--the "forum PvP" could move on, and we could talk about games and design again.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
"Savior" is just pre-loading the argument for lots of emotive responses. Players really shouldn't do that. Staff shouldn't either.
Now, if we could just get everyone to stop shooting long enough--the "forum PvP" could move on, and we could talk about games and design again.
I wouldn't say 8 years. I really enjoyed my time in TBC. WotLK is what killed WoW for me. Even that had some redeeming factors and wasn't a total wasted of my time, I played it on and off.
But yeah, it was the start of the decline. but from 2004 until 2008 WoW was still good.
Does the MMO genre need saving? I think alot of people don't realize that MMOs are very different from other gaming genres. MMOs are supposed to be played for years on end. It's not like Madden or CoD where there's a new one that you're supposed to jump to every year. If you hop from one MMO to the next everytime a new one comes out, then you aren't going to be happy with any of them.
Another mistake I think alot of players make is that MMOs aren't actually about gear or endgame at all. They're about the journey of your character, the people you meet, and the story of how you triumph against all odds. Going from level 1 to cap in a couple of days will cause you to end up hating any MMO, because there is no real "endgame" in MMOs. They're MMOs, they're not supposed to ever end. There is no final final boss that you kill and the credits will roll.
I think alot of developers don't get these points either. They want to add in a good "endgame" when and MMO should never have an end. They want to add new content and gear without much of a story at all. I think this is where WoW gets it right and why it's so popular. With every content patch they add, there is always a story behind it, and a reason why you're going to go raid that dungeon and kill that boss. It's not for the gear (well it shouldn't be), it's for the sake of killing that boss because he's evil or endangering your way of life. If you make a game with no story behind why you're players are going to do something, then they have no reason to do it.
Yes MMOs have quests to go kill 10 rats, but the overall arching story should always be there in the back of your mind when you play. I can go make a new character in WoW or Rift still and go through it knowing what will happen next and still enjoy it, because I know in the back of my mind that I'm going to be saving this town, or helping people find a murderer, or cause unrepable damage to my enemies.
I'm going to disagree with this part of your post.
One thing that Death Knights proved was that all content prior to current is irrelevant. There was no need to go back throgh Vanilla. Except to level and even with that, to do it as fast as possible to get to endgame content where everyone else was.
Now, if you are going to say that your statement is how it should be, then yes, the genre does need saving.
I have seen A-Net do a lot of misleading,but have they promised anything?This topic really has nothing to do with any devils advocate,it is a simple ,what did they promise and we can dicuss weather it is even possible.
I do KNOW Square Enix well and hey are a developer who makes promises and oddly enough DELIVERS and pretty mcuh on time also.That is not common place in gaming now days.
My opinion is that A-Net does not strike me as being a developer that would make promises becuase to be frank,i think they would struggle to meet them.
Once you enter the realm of no subscription model,you have ZERO ongoing income from that player.This means every bit of content MUST have a time line and the over all profit margin must remain at a certain target.If anything starts to waiver NOT in A-Net's favor,then expect RUSHED or missing content,the latter you will never know unless they flat out tell you they couldn't finish the content in time,not likely to happen.
As long as there is a subscription model,you as a develoepr can make promises becuase it is a matter of perhaps taking a bit longer to recoup the extra cost.No sub fee yo ucan't recoup the extra time to fulfill a promise,so it is a straight up profit loss.Imo that type of setup does not bode well for the players,they have no chance of getting the best possible product ONLY one that will meet the devs time line.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
i played in the betas-stress tests and it is no savior its really a wow wanna be it use to be original but they changed gw2, 2 much -and its just too much like wow now -ive played em all- among thousands of other pc games:P Guild wars 1 was WAY better and there will always be a new savior of mmos its just whatever is ("In") at that time
The problem with saying things like this, "Is Guild Wars 2 the MMO Savior?" is that in a few months when another AAA title releases it will be the next "savior of MMOs".
While GW2 maybe new and cool for now, but when the newness rubs off in a few months, it will just be another game that everyone starts screaming is bad, or lacks development and how the next game is going to destroy it. The F2P model they have chosen is a good one but it is like most F2P models of its type, generates a spike of income but lacks longevity. People will tend to blow 30-100 dollars in the first month or two of their game time then will begin to drop off after that.
I think this is by far the best sequal to a franchise MMO that has come out in a good while, but we are entering the age of sequals.
So much crap, so little quality.
One of the the best articles I have read in a while it seems. Every article I read praises "insert game here" or bounces around the subject if they dont really like aspects in fear of flaming. To the point with very good advice and reasoning.
I don't play GW2 but have played on a friends account. It isn't for me (at this time) . As you said I would never want to see a game fail but at the same time the community surrounding a possibly astounding game pushes me away. This was the same thing behind Tera. I felt, and still feel that Tera is a great game with a terrible community.
The elitest attitude needs to die in videogames (hell let's make it the entire world while we are at it). I feel like it is brought along by new age online FPS (Call of Duty, Halo, Battle Field, Ect.) through consoles. It is so easy to bash someone through a tv screen/microphone/keyboard without thinking on the impact you are making. You are free/safe to say whatever you want without pending consequences from that person (most of the time). Seeing as how MMOs have adopted many things from FPS like battlesgrounds and instant que, it is easy for the same mindset to be applied. This person is from this server and I will never see them again. Take all of that and apply it to a forum and add in the idea that trolling is "cool" now and you have a very nasty flame machine.
My point is as well with this argument that the people that post here about GW2 (or the majority) have turned me off of this game.
Take negative comments against this game with a grain of salt and remember in the long run it won't impact it at all. However, remember a few negative comments versus millions of flames on those negative comments will impact the appeal of the game and its' community.
This is what I see. GW2 fans are excited about Anets take on resolving problems inherint in mmo's today. Generally, we've all said it, and we've all read others saying it and we're growing tired of trying to correct the misconceptions. There are alot of people that don't have a clue but that doesn't stop them from having a blog or youtube channel or fansite or whatever form of web presence. These people are quoted and misinformation bleeds out tainting the discretion of people who use this basis as a means of research.
So rather than focusing on the zealot fanboy's that try so desperately hard to help people understand, why don't you take a little responsibility on how YOU create problems. YOU emphasize how these fervent fanboys are always attacking people with legitimate concerns, however no mention on the blatant misinformation presented by so many. It's not against any forum guidelines to be wrong, but it is wrong to attack those who spread misinformation.
Now I'm not saying that people should be allowed to attack other posters, but if the people who are responsible for these websites would issue some input into correcting misinformation it would go a long long way. I doubt that would ever happen though, it's easy to claim that you aren't responsible for the information others post even though it's through your medium that it is posted.
So sure, we need to be the savior of GW2 but remember that if we're doing the saving, who or what are we saving it from. Who gets listed as the anti-savior?
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
You've never been a hater?
Your posting history begs to differ, nice try though.
Rambling article imo.
If we look at the release of Themepark mmorpgs over last 5yrs or so (the time GW2 has been in dev let's say more or less): It's mostly be repeating the pattern of spike of players, and each successive one sees a faster and faster fall off esp. with SWOTR. How will GW2 compare?
I'm guessing it will in part buck that negative trend. The price is very different and more equitable to players, firstly and lastingly. A lot of the needless grindlness is removed and the talent and polish of the various components of the mmorpg are very high.
Then there's pvp in 2 modes both of which look credible in their own formats. The value for money even if the PvE is themepark finite, seems considerably higher than other mmorpgs. So I think there's boost in success compared to what we're becoming all too accustomed to with themepark releases.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem